Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-14T10:14:54.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domestic Legal Preparedness and Response to Ebola

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

James G. Hodge Jr. ,
Matthew S. Penn ,
Montrece Ransom  and
Jane E. Jordan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While the global threat of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in 2014 was concentrated in several West African countries, its effects have been felt in many developed countries including the United States. Initial, select patients with EVD, largely among American health care workers (HCWs) volunteering in affected regions, were subsequently transported back to the states for isolation and treatment in high-level medical facilities. This included Emory University Hospital, which sits adjacent to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.

The first domestic case of EVD occurred in late September in Dallas, Texas. Additional exposures of two HCWs generated an array of legal issues for state and local public health authorities, hospitals, and providers. Consideration of these issues led to extensive discussion among lawyers, public health practitioners, and other attendees at a late-breaking session on EVD and Legal Preparedness at the 2014 National Public Health Law conference. In this commentary, session presenters from CDC and Emory University share their expert perspectives on legal and policy issues underlying state and local powers to quarantine and isolate persons exposed to or infected with Ebola, as well as facets of hospital preparedness underlying the successful treatment of patients with EVD.

Type
JLME Supplement
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue S1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 15 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gostin, L. O. Hodge, J. G. Jr. Burris, S., “Is the United States Prepared for Ebola?” JAMA E1–2 (2014), available at <http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1918850> (last visited January 13, 2015).Google Scholar
Hodge, J. G. Jr. Gostin, L. O. Hanfling, D. Hick, J. L., “Law, Medicine, and Public Health Preparedness: The Case of Ebola,” Public Health Reports, 130 (2014): 1–4, at 2.Google Scholar
Hodge, J. G. Jr. Measer, G. Agrawal, A. M., “Top 10 Issues of Law, Public Health, and Ebola,” ABA Health e-Source 2015.Google Scholar
Shaw, F. E. McKie, K. L. Liveoak, C. A. Goodman, R. A., and the State Public Health Counsel Review Team, “Variation in Quarantine Powers Among the 10 Most Populous US States in 2004,” American Journal of Public Health, 97 no. S1 (2007): S38–S43, at S38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Const. Amend. X.Google Scholar
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26 (1905).Google Scholar
Id., at 27 (“Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”).Google Scholar
Id., at 25 (“It is equally true that the state may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety. The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the state, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a state, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States, nor infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.”).Google Scholar
Id., at 29 (“But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”).Google Scholar
Jew Ho v. Williamson, 103 F. Supp.10 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1900).Google Scholar
Id., at 24. Additionally, the court questioned whether the bubonic plague was at all present, as no living cases had been examined and there had been no evidence of “transmission of the disease from any of those who have died.” Id., at 25. Ultimately, the court stated “the evidence in this case seems to be sufficient to establish the fact that the bubonic plague has not existed, and does not now exist, in San Francisco.” Id., at 26.Google Scholar
Mayhew v. Hickox, No. CV-2014-36 (Maine, D. October 31, 2014) (order pending hearing), available at <http://courts.maine.gov/news_reference/high_profile/hickox/order_pending_hearing.pdf> (last visited January 13, 2015).+(last+visited+January+13,+2015).>Google Scholar
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960) (“In a series of decisions this Court has held that, even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved. The breadth of legislative abridgment must be viewed in the light of less drastic means for achieving the same basic purpose.”).Google Scholar
See Shaw, et al., supra note 4.Google Scholar
See 20 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 2305/2(c) (West 2014).Google Scholar
Emory University, CEPAR Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, available at <www.emergency.emory.edu> (last visited January 13, 2015) (CEPAR is the Center for Emory enterprise-side planning for, and coordinated response to, catastrophic events affecting Emory and the broader community. It partners with various schools, departments, organizations, groups and governing bodies throughout the institution and the community).+(last+visited+January+13,+2015)+(CEPAR+is+the+Center+for+Emory+enterprise-side+planning+for,+and+coordinated+response+to,+catastrophic+events+affecting+Emory+and+the+broader+community.+It+partners+with+various+schools,+departments,+organizations,+groups+and+governing+bodies+throughout+the+institution+and+the+community).>Google Scholar
Isakov, A. Jamison, A. Miles, W. Ribner, B., “Safe Management of Patients with Serious Communicable Diseases: Recent Experience with Ebola Virus,” Annals Internal Medicine (2014), available at <http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1906849> (last visited January 13, 2015); Fox, J. Bornstein, B. Grant, S., “Emory Healthcare Ebola Preparedness Protocols,” available at <www.emoryhealthcare.org/ebolaprep> (last visited January 13, 2015) (for a compilation of Emory's protocols and external resources used in the treatment of patients with Ebola).+(last+visited+January+13,+2015);+Fox,+J.+Bornstein,+B.+Grant,+S.,+“Emory+Healthcare+Ebola+Preparedness+Protocols,”+available+at++(last+visited+January+13,+2015)+(for+a+compilation+of+Emory's+protocols+and+external+resources+used+in+the+treatment+of+patients+with+Ebola).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 160.100 et seq.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §1395dd (2011).Google Scholar